View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Operations Fault Tree Analysis |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Operations Failure Mode and Effects Analysis |  Facilitation Alignment Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | For a critical top event with several possible triggers, the method logically models failure paths. It makes visible which combinations of conditions can lead to damage. | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | For a process, product, or service with noticeable failure risks, the method assesses possible failure modes in advance. It directs attention to combinations of occurrence, effect, and detectability. | When several people work toward one goal but hold different mental maps, Alignment Mapping makes the discrepancies visible. It arranges goals, assumptions, and priorities so shared direction becomes verifiable. |
Complexitydifferent | High | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 2-6 h | 45-90 min | 2-6 h | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-8 | 3-12 | 3-10 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Fault Tree, Critical Paths, Cause Hypotheses, Control Actions | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | FMEA Table, Risk Priority, Mitigation Actions | Alignment Map, Open Issues, Decision Questions |
Tagsno overlap | RiskRoot causeSafety | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | RiskQualityOperationsRoot cause | AlignmentStakeholdersStrategyFacilitation |